The Tokyo District Court issued an injunction banning the March 25 issue
of the weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun, which included an article
about Manako Tanaka, the eldest daughter of Makiko Tanaka, a member of Japan's
House of Representatives. According to news reports, the article alleged
that Manako married despite opposition from her parents, and that she was
divorced a year later, after which she returned to Japan from Los Angeles.

The injunction stated that the magazine's publisher could not sell, give
away, or turn over the magazine to a third party unless the article in question
was eliminated. However, by the time the order was issued, the publisher
had already delivered about 740,000 copies of the magazine to newsstands
and bookstores, having withheld 30,000 unshipped copies. The injunction
did not include an order to recall the shipped copies, and did not restrict
stores from selling the already distributed copies. According to local media,
most of the shipped copies were sold, partly because of increased interest
in the publication because of the injunction.

On March 19, the District Court upheld the injunction, rejecting an objection
filed by Shukan Bunshun's publisher, Bungeishunju Ltd., on March
17. Bungeishunju Ltd. sent the issue free of charge to regular subscribers
after removing the article and appealed the case to the Tokyo High Court,
arguing that Manako was a public figure as the child of a politician.

On March 31, the High Court overruled the injunction against Shukan Bunshun.
While the High Court agreed that the article was an infringement of privacy
and rejected the publisher's argument that Manako was a public figure, the
court ruled that the injunction limited freedom of expression, and that
the article did not cause "irrecoverable damage" to Manako.

On April 3, Manako decided against appealing the High Court ruling, noting
that Bungeishunju Ltd. had said it would not sell any remaining copies of
the magazine. On April 6, the High Court ruling overturning the injunction
became final.

The case sparked debate among Japanese journalists about the right to privacy
versus the right to freedom of expression and, according to some observers,
had a chilling effect on the media, especially since the criteria used in
granting the injunction remain ambiguous.